skunk-works-digest Saturday, August 23 1997 Volume 06 : Number 070 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** 2nd best part...Red Flag MOAs A-10's in Republic Airport (off topic) RE: A-10's in Republic Airport (off topic) Re: OK, No more frogs! RE: B-2 vs H2O RE: B-2 vs H2O Re[2]: B-2 vs H2O Re: The Semantics of Levitating Frogs Any photos of the long nose F-106 mod out there? Re[2]: The Semantics of Levitating Frogs Re[2]: The Semantics of Levitating Frogs re: Re[2]: The Semantics of Levitating Frogs Re[4]: The Semantics of Levitating Frogs [none] [none] Re: Teledyne Stealth *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 21:14:22 +0000 From: Jim Rotramel Subject: 2nd best part...Red Flag MOAs When you're north of Area 51, you're smack in the middle of the MOAs used by Red Flag. Looking on a civilian map, when you're in the area bounded ROUGHLY by Pioche, Eglin, Goldfield, Tonopah, Timber Mt. and back to Pioche, you probably have a pretty fair chance of 'gettin' your doors blowed off' a couple of times a day when Red Flags are in progress. The strike force normally ingresses from the southeast corner of this area and proceed clockwise around. The ranges are on the western edge and you wouldn't want to go there, even if you could (live bombing in progress). Probably the best place to go would be in the area southeast of Kawich Peak. Jim ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 03:24:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: A-10's in Republic Airport (off topic) Sorry about the off-topic question, but these aircrafts came from Nevada... so, maybe someone can help me. Today... well, yesterday Thu. 21, I saw three A-10's landing in the Republic Airport, Long Island. Republic Airport is a civilian airport. My question is, what the heck three A-10 from 53rd Wing 'OT', Nellis AFB, Nevada is doing here in NY? I know that Republic Fairchild used to build the A-10 in that airport, but the company is out of bussiness. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net - --------- "I've done... questionable things. Nothing the God of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for." Roy Batty (Blade Runner) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 11:47:10 -0400 From: "Szalay, John P (GEA, 022708)" Subject: RE: A-10's in Republic Airport (off topic) > ---------- > From: Wei-Jen Su[SMTP:wsu02@utopia.poly.edu] > Reply To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Sent: Friday, August 22, 1997 3:24AM > To: Skunk Works > Subject: A-10's in Republic Airport (off topic) > > > Sorry about the off-topic question, but these aircrafts came from > Nevada... so, maybe someone can help me. > Today... well, yesterday Thu. 21, I saw three A-10's landing in >the Republic Airport, Long Island. Republic Airport is a civilian >airport. >My question is, what the heck three A-10 from 53rd Wing 'OT', Nellis AFB, >Nevada is doing here in NY? I know that Republic Fairchild used to build >the A-10 in that airport, but the company is out of bussiness. FWIW: We have military aircraft stop off here at SDF all the time for refueling and whatever, its normal to see F-14 F-16 F-18 AV-8B and A-10's in the pattern and parked overnight on the apron. used to see C-5 and KC-10 as well, but since DOD dropped the "active" units from Ft Knox and left only the training units and such, they are few and far between. John Szalay ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 02:58:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: OK, No more frogs! On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 jaz5@ix.netcom.com wrote: > > OK no more frogs, I'll stick to airplanes > James Su-25 'Frogfoot-B' hehe... you see Jimmy, even the airplanes does not escape of frogs :) May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net - --------- "I've done... questionable things. Nothing the God of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for." Roy Batty (Blade Runner) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 97 11:20:47 EDT From: JOHN SZALAY Subject: RE: B-2 vs H2O With all due "respect" for the media and the Hype about the "problem" with H2O and the B-2, I decided to check out the GAO report myself. Heres the WWW address for GAO reports. The reports themselves are available online, however you do need to have a .PDF reader. The ascii version is supposed to be available as well, but so far, its not been found. :) .PDF version is at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/newtitle.htm Report number is NSIAD-97-181 Title is B-2 Bomber: Cost and Operational Issues the Ascii version is supposed to be at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces160.shtml same number and title, however its MIA. IHMO: The GAO folks would find a problem with a goldbar. John Szalay ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 12:28:33 -0500 From: Tom Robison Subject: RE: B-2 vs H2O John wrote >IHMO: The GAO folks would find a problem with a goldbar. Well, that's what they're there for, but they do seem like a bunch of fussy Temperance Union ladies at times. Still, I can't figure out what the fuss is all about. Did they (USAF) not build special environmentally controlled hangars for B-2 maintenance? It was known (by most of us, anyway) several years ago that the B-2 (and the F-117) coatings were fragile and required regular maintenance. Why are they making such a big deal about it now? BTW, how much does a deteriorated coating add to the RCS? If a B-2 flies through rain on its way to a strike, will it bloom like a spring daisy on the enemy's radar? Methinks not... Tom Robison tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 13:33:45 -0400 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com (GREG WEIGOLD) Subject: Re[2]: B-2 vs H2O I think that the ADOBE home page has free download of almost every possible version of ACROBAT READER ever available. The reader is available for OS/2, Win95/WinNT (same 32-bit code), Win 3.1 (16-bit), Lynux, MAC, etc. The free reader version has read and print capabilities, and some platforms have a version that includes a reader w/search. FYI...... GW Greg Weigold Columbia,SC gregweigold@pmsc.com ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: RE: B-2 vs H2O Author: JOHN SZALAY at INTERNET Date: 8/22/97 11:20 AM With all due "respect" for the media and the Hype about the "problem" with H2O and the B-2, I decided to check out the GAO report myself. Heres the WWW address for GAO reports. The reports themselves are available online, however you do need to have a .PDF reader. The ascii version is supposed to be available as well, but so far, its not been found. :) .PDF version is at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/newtitle.htm Report number is NSIAD-97-181 Title is B-2 Bomber: Cost and Operational Issues the Ascii version is supposed to be at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces160.shtml same number and title, however its MIA. IHMO: The GAO folks would find a problem with a goldbar. John Szalay ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 14:15:48 -0700 From: larry@ichips.intel.com Subject: Re: The Semantics of Levitating Frogs Tony Craddock writes: >SCIENTISTS SAY THEY MADE A FROG FLOAT IN AIR > >FROM NEWS SERVICE REPORTS > > 04/13/97 >The Record, Northern New Jersey > >All Editions Sunday >(Copyright 1997) >... >To hold up the frog, the magnetic field had to be a million times >stronger than that of the Earth, the scientists said. Only then was >it strong enough to distort the orbits of electrons in the frog's >atoms. >... >The scientists said their frog showed no signs of distress after >floating in the air inside a magnetic cylinder. Brett Davidson responds: >A minor bit of pedantry here. The recently reported levitation of frogs by >magnetic means has been described as antigravity. It is simply the use of >magnetic repulsion ... jaz5 responds: >I think this is really a skunk-works item. If you can levitate a frog by >altering the orbits of its atoms, you ought to be able to levitate >anything. Isn't this a physics issue? If it works won't there be a black >project on it? patrick cullumber responds: >>>I think this is really a skunk-works item. If you can levitate a frog by >>>altering the orbits of its atoms, you ought to be able to levitate >>>anything. Isn't this a physics issue? If it works won't there be a black >>>project on it? >>======================================================= >>I think the Skunkworks is into aircraft design, not alchemy. Alchemy? Phhhhhhhhhhhhhh .... ! I saw Leik Myrabo of RPI, of beam boosted aircraft fame, talk about such a scheme for boarding a future aircraft that cannot land. Someone earlier talked about tradeoffs in the Harrier wing design having to do with VTOL. This is similar. Since Skunk Works airplanes have broken past paradigms, this fits. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 14:50:49 -0700 From: larry@ichips.intel.com Subject: Any photos of the long nose F-106 mod out there? Does anyone have photos or know of where there are photos of F-106As (57-239 and 57-240) with the 5' nose extension to test the 40 inch radar dish. These birds flew in 1959. Larry larry@ichips.intel.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 17:44:36 -0400 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com (GREG WEIGOLD) Subject: Re[2]: The Semantics of Levitating Frogs I'm not sure I want to be the first human that they test this on... a million times more powerful than the Earth's magnetic field? That sounds like asking for trouble!! If 1 watt of radiated power from a cell phone causes brain tumors (allegedly) then what will this do? It sounds like the good doctor's words might apply: "...I hate getting into that contraption and having my atoms 'beamed' all over the galaxy!"- Dr. Leonard McCoy (Star Trek, c.1966,67,79,etc) :-o Greg Columbia,SC gregweigold@pmsc.com ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: The Semantics of Levitating Frogs Author: larry@ichips.intel.com at INTERNET Date: 8/22/97 2:15 PM Tony Craddock writes: >SCIENTISTS SAY THEY MADE A FROG FLOAT IN AIR > >FROM NEWS SERVICE REPORTS > > 04/13/97 >The Record, Northern New Jersey > >All Editions Sunday >(Copyright 1997) >... >To hold up the frog, the magnetic field had to be a million times >stronger than that of the Earth, the scientists said. Only then was >it strong enough to distort the orbits of electrons in the frog's >atoms. >... >The scientists said their frog showed no signs of distress after >floating in the air inside a magnetic cylinder. Brett Davidson responds: >A minor bit of pedantry here. The recently reported levitation of frogs by >magnetic means has been described as antigravity. It is simply the use of >magnetic repulsion ... jaz5 responds: >I think this is really a skunk-works item. If you can levitate a frog by >altering the orbits of its atoms, you ought to be able to levitate >anything. Isn't this a physics issue? If it works won't there be a black >project on it? patrick cullumber responds: >>>I think this is really a skunk-works item. If you can levitate a frog by >>>altering the orbits of its atoms, you ought to be able to levitate >>>anything. Isn't this a physics issue? If it works won't there be a black >>>project on it? >>======================================================= >>I think the Skunkworks is into aircraft design, not alchemy. Alchemy? Phhhhhhhhhhhhhh .... ! I saw Leik Myrabo of RPI, of beam boosted aircraft fame, talk about such a scheme for boarding a future aircraft that cannot land. Someone earlier talked about tradeoffs in the Harrier wing design having to do with VTOL. This is similar. Since Skunk Works airplanes have broken past paradigms, this fits. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 15:27:52 -0700 From: larry@ichips.intel.com Subject: Re[2]: The Semantics of Levitating Frogs Greg writes: > I'm not sure I want to be the first human that they test this on... a > million times more powerful than the Earth's magnetic field? That > sounds like asking for trouble!! If 1 watt of radiated power from a > cell phone causes brain tumors (allegedly) then what will this do? > > It sounds like the good doctor's words might apply: > > "...I hate getting into that contraption and having my atoms 'beamed' > all over the galaxy!"- Dr. Leonard McCoy (Star Trek, c.1966,67,79,etc) > :-o Yes, good point, BUT! According to Tony's original report: >>The scientists said their frog showed no signs of distress after >>floating in the air inside a magnetic cylinder. But perhaps most of their atoms didn't really change. And how would we ever measure it anyway with Heisenberg? NOW! When Myrabo first talked about this, I don't think he was talking about the scheme reported in Tony's article. I think he was talking about people wearing some sort of magnetic device, after all, at least one of the authors who wrote about Myrabo's Mach 50, 120+G beam boosted aircraft, talked about the need for a special immersion suit where one breathed an oxyginated liquid, ala Robert Forward's sci-fi book "TimeMasters" or Orson Scott Card's "The Abyss" (different venue). Now THAT (the need for a high acceleration immersion suit) raises another question with the discovery reported in Tony's article, doesn't it, fellow skunkers? And this is an INCREDIBLY INTERESTING issue! And very applicable to very advanced highly maneuverable MANNED aircraft! For if Tony's article is true, and it indeed works on all atoms of the body, what is another interesting application of such a mechanism? Would one need anti-gravity to prevent very high G maneuvers from crushing occupants? No, not at all! It suddenly becomes a lot easier! Ah, the advantage of an open mind! Larry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 97 15:43:02 GMT From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: re: Re[2]: The Semantics of Levitating Frogs What do we do when the Russians reveal their titanium frog, immune to magnetism? Art Hanley An opinion by any other name would still not reflect those of my employers ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 18:47:52 -0400 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com (GREG WEIGOLD) Subject: Re[4]: The Semantics of Levitating Frogs We paint it black and send it back at Mach 3+ !!! GW <|:-) ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: re: Re[2]: The Semantics of Levitating Frogs Author: ahanley@usace.mil at INTERNET Date: 8/22/97 3:43 PM What do we do when the Russians reveal their titanium frog, immune to magnetism? Art Hanley An opinion by any other name would still not reflect those of my employers ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 17:04:25 -0600 From: Earl Needham Subject: [none] unsubscribe skunk-works ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 17:07:30 -0600 From: Earl Needham Subject: [none] unsubscribe skunk-works ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 17:10:52 -0600 From: Earl Needham Subject: Re: At 05:07 PM 8/22/97 -0600, Earl Needham wrote: >unsubscribe skunk-works FOR THE SECOND TIME! Oops... What I really need to do is to change my address from needhame@3lefties.com to kd5xb@amsat.org How? I don't have the original subscription message, as my disk crashed a while back. Could someone possibly forward a copy of it to kd5xb@amsat.org ? Thanks! Earl Needham, KD5XB Clovis, NM Wood Badge at Philmont! http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/7582/ ICQ #925486 KD5XB@AMSAT.ORG Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia, Pi Chi '76 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 15:22:47 +1200 (NZST) From: Kerry Ferrand Subject: Teledyne Stealth The IBM Patent server now has the whole mid 70's Teledyne Ryan "Aircraft of low observability" patent scanned in...looks something like the "TR-3" of myth and legend. http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?patent_number=4019699 or http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/cgi-bin/viewpat.cmd/4019699 K ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V6 #70 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe in the body of a message to "skunk-works-digest-request@netwrx1.com". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to georgek@netwrx1.com. A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for viewing by a www interface located at: http://ww.netwrx1.com/~georgek/skunk-works If you have any questions or problems please contact me at: georgek@netwrx1.com Thanks, George R. Kasica Listowner